Cricket 1911

J u l y 1, 1911. C R IC K E T : A W EEK LY RECORD OF THE GAME. 279 B U S S E Y ’S WORLD - FAMED. Q p ^ 27/6 9 1% w 2 2 / 6 Q 0 ft ^ % / V 18/6 • 9 0 s £ 16/6 ^ 4 14/6 " 77;e Evolution of a Cricket Bat," OBTAINABLE FREE UPON REQUEST. 36 & 38, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET , LONDON, E.C. Factoriess: | Peckham, London. Elmswell, Suffolk. A g e n t s a ll o v e r t h e W o rld . Cricket Notches. B y th e R e v . R . 8 . H o lm e s . we not miss a golden opportunity last week ? A Coronation match at Lord’s should have been forthcoming, although not as a mark or proof of the loyalty of cricketers ; that goes without saying. But on a national holiday, when all business was suspended, there were several thousand cricket enthu­ siasts who did not witness either Procession, and would have been only too glad to pass the days at a match of prime importance. At Leyton and at Nottingham vast crowds were attracted. Just ninety years ago, when George the Fourth was crowned, a Coronation match was played at Lord’s between the Gentlemen and the Players which was brought to an abrupt termination on the second day, July 24. ‘ ‘ The Gentlemen gave up the match. ” Chiefly, if not exclusively, I imagine, because they were hopelessly outclassed ; for, whilst they scored only 60, the Players ran up a total of 278 for the loss of only six wickets, Tom Beagley, who was the only Hampshire cricketer of note at that time and for many subsequent years, getting 113 not out. The Gentlemen to-day could put up a much better fight, and even if they could not they have pluck enough to hold their corner until the bitter end. As soon as the date of the Coronation was fixed, somebody should have suggested that as the fitting time for the great annual combat at Lord’s. Such a match as M.C.C. v. Cambridge University was not worthy of the occasion. I have been trying to find out on what basis the teams for the second Trial match now being played were chosen : but the ways of Selection Committees resemble those of the Heathen Chinee— “ are peculiar.” Why are four Middlesex men honoured, but not one Yorkshireman ? As Yorkshire are playing Notts at the same time they can ill afford to be without their ablest cricketers, but it may cost Notts dearly to be deprived of the services of George Gunn and Iremonger. Tarrant’s inclusion is a huge blunder. On his merits as an all-round cricketer he is worth a place in almost any match. Let him play for Australia next season if wanted, just as Sammy Woods did in 1888, but he must never be included in an England eleven. I hope the Australian captain will put his foot down firmly. Again, why choose Warner, Jessop and Spooner, all of whom are old Test players, and pass by Hayward Hirst and Tyldesley ? On this year’s form the latter trio are indispensable. Wood and Vine can put in a strong claim, although neither is in my judgment the stamp of an England batsman. But Sharp is, and Denton’s qualifications cannot be lightly dismissed. The inclusion of so many younger men is sound ; as Mead cannot accept the invitation, his place might be filled by Makepeace who in his last six innings for Lancashire has scored no less than 387 runs, whilst last week Fane’s tally was 12 runs in 4 innings ! Douglas, Fane’s captain, may well wonder why he has been left out. One more good-natured growl. Ought the Indians’ matches to count first-class ? The M.C.C. have so decreed, and there’s an end of it. But our visitors, whom we are glad to welcome, would scarcely hold their own against the Minor Counties. It is ridiculous for a first-class county to play full strength against them. I note that Lancashire the other day very wisely rested certain players, and there is little doubt that other counties will follow their example. The tour is not exciting curiosity. The fact is, that at the present time there are crowds of coloured people over here, and in consequence there is no special attraction in a native cricket team from India. Good cricket alone will draw the cricket-loving public. The welcome crack in the weather puts me into a merry humour : bats­ men’s averages are taking an Irishman’s rise ; the bowlers at last are enjoying themselves, although one famous bowler, Blythe, has not yet proved a thorn in batsmen’s sides. Fancy Hampshire, even in the absence of Fry and Mead, going down before Somerset for a paltry 44, their smallest score since 1904. On only six previous occasions have Hampshire been dismissed for less than 50 runs. It may be of interest to the lovers of records to state here that Surrey have not once failed to notch 50 since 1898. Yorkshire came next with one such innings—26 against Surrey in 1909. Whilst in the same period of thirteen seasons Lancashire and Kent have twice fallen short of that modest total. You may put it down to my ‘ ‘ cussedness ” or anything else you like, but I had far sooner watch an innings of 50 than one of 500. Perhaps it is because of my strong sympathy with bowlers and my intense admiration of their skill. Another curiosity of last week was young Hearne’s double failure at Worcester ; very probably his run out in the second innings was the penalty of a natural anxiety not to repeat his initial failure. I have not modified in the smallest degree the judgment passed on him in this column last week. He may remember for his consolation that his own captain has twice in the last six years been equally unfortunate ; and so have such masters with the bat as Fry, Spooner, the eldest Foster, Hirst, Denton, Quaife, Perrin,